Talk:Tessellation

Tessellation currently seems a broad-concept article (BCA), covering several closely related concepts. Its main section, Tessellation#In mathematics, is notable enough to deserve a separate article, Tessellation (mathematics). That section is so large that it has its own introductory section. A summary of the new article would be left in the old section, of course. fgnievinski (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If you don't agree with the splitting proposal, that means Tessellation is not meant to be a BCA. Then, I assume it's supposed to be mainly about the mathematical concept and secondarily about its occurrence in other areas. In that case, the present article would need some restructuring. First, sections In art, In manufacturing, and In nature would need to be demoted as subsections of a new section Tessellation#Occurrence and applications. Secondly, section Tessellation#In mathematics would need to be promoted, by making its subsections first-level sections. fgnievinski (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion at #Creating a separate Tiling (mathematics) page. fgnievinski (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You know it's currently listed as a Good Article, correct? So perhaps your "this is all wrong and everyone who thinks otherwise is also wrong" approach could use re-thinking. Or in other words, what's wrong with an article that covers both the real-world and mathematical aspects of a topic, in a single article? Where is the need to ghettoize all mathematics into its own separate articles to keep them away from all those nasty real-world applications? To put it more bluntly, I strongly disagree. I think that having both applications and their mathematical analysis in a single article is a good thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns for ghettoization of mathematics. I believe it could be saned leaving a summary in the broad-concept article (BCA). That's how I and others have done at Surface and in Surface (mathematics). The intention here is more to give space for Tessellation (mathematics) to grow. Perhaps even have some equations (other than the few existing in-line equations), you know. But it looks like you prefer Tessellation not to be a WP:BCA, in which case the Mathematics subsections would be promoted and the Application sections demoted, as proposed in the second original option. fgnievinski (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Or, we could, you know, keep the balance as it already is and not do what you say or else. The threatening language you used as the header for this thread is not promising as a way of building consensus for some kind of change. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologize that my language made you feel threatened. That was not my intention, I value and expect civility in Wikipedia. So now I've rewritten the talk section title, replacing "or else" with "or an alternative". fgnievinski (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There are article in New Scientist, but behind a paywall:

• "Mathematicians discover shape that can tile a wall and never repeat". New Scientist. 2023-03-21.

jcubic (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)